2013 National Conference on Students in Transition
Supporting the Transition of Academically Underprepared
Students in Mathematics and English
Dr. Marva Lucas
Dr. Sheila Otto
Middle Tennessee State University
Goals for This Session
To provide background information on MTSU’s redesign of developmental education courses into General Education and Electives Courses
To provide assessment data of that redesign from Fall 2006 to Spring 2012 (positive and less than positive results)
To provide an opportunity for you to ask questions and discuss issues of redesign
Middle Tennessee State University
Public 4-yr institution in TBR system, 35 miles southeast of Nashville
Largest undergraduate population in TN. Total headcount > 25,000
35-40% of 1st-time freshmen require 1 or more courses of additional preparation or support
Middle Tennessee State University
Our redesigned courses are designated “K” (last letter in Banner) and “prescribed.”
31% of students in prescribed courses are non-traditional.
At graduation, 42% have completed at least one prescribed course.
Tennessee Board of Regents 6 Univ.; 13 C.C.; 26 Tech Schools
Historical Progression Impacting DE
TBR 2001 -Defining Our Future
TBR Setting New Directions: A 2005 -2010 Strategic Plan
2010 Complete College Act of Tennessee
MTSU Redesign
MTSU’s redesign of R/D courses into college level courses was completed in 2006, and we now have several semesters of results included in this report.
Former Developmental Writing Structure
Placement: ACT English Score below 19 and holistically scored placement essay
Developmental Writing course: 3 hours institutional credit
Next Course in Sequence: English 1010, Expository Writing (Gen Ed composition)
Developmental Writing Redesign:
Two Models (Initial Implementation 2006-07)
Stretch model:
Two-semester sequence of Gen Ed composition instruction
Accelerated Studio model:
Students can earn Gen Ed credit in one semester
MTSU’s Stretch Model
MTSU’s Stretch Program borrows from Arizona State’s model:
http://english.clas.asu.edu/Stretch_Program
Gen Ed composition curriculum (ENGL 1010) is expanded and extended over two semesters
Students work with same instructor and classmates for two semesters
MTSU’s Stretch Program: Two Courses
Introduction to University Writing, ENGL 1009K
Satisfies prescribed course requirement
College-level course (3 hrs elective credit)
Higher level curriculum moves at slower pace
Emphasis on process and revision
Expository Writing, ENGL 1010K
Fulfills general education requirement (3 hrs credit)
Curriculum identical to “regular” ENGL 1010
Student Pass Rates ENGL 1009 course vs.
Developmental Writing course
Course
Passing
(A - C)
Not Passing
(N,F,W,I)
ENGL 1009
2006-2012
74%
26%
Developmental Writing
2004-2006
74%
26%
Course Retention Rates ENGL 1009 course vs.
Developmental Writing course
Course Retention Rate
ENGL 1009
2006-2012
82%
Developmental Writing 2004-2006
82%
Student Pass Rates ENGL 1010K (Stretch sections) vs.
Non-Stretch (“regular” sections) of ENGL 1010
Note: z-test for two proportions indicates the pass rates for these two groups are significantly different at 95% confidence level (z = 3.499).
Data for 2006-2012
Passing
(A-C)
Not Passing (N,F,W,I)
ENGL 1010K (Stretch) 78.7% 21.3%
ENGL 1010 (non-Stretch) 75.9% 24.1%
Student Pass Rates in Subsequent English Course (ENGL 1020)
ENGL 1020
(2006-2012)
Passing
(A-C)
Not Passing (N,F,W,I)
Non-Stretch students 76.6% 23.4%
Former Stretch students 74.1% 25.9%
Note: z-test for two proportions indicates that pass rates for these groups are significantly different at 95% confidence level (z = -2.5638).
Survey Data: Stretch Program Students
Having the same instructor and classmates for both ENGL 1009 & 1010 has been an overall positive experience:
Agree: 88% Disagree: 4% Not Applicable: 8%
Having the same instructor and classmates for both courses has helped me become a better writer:
Agree: 85% Disagree: 7% Not Applicable: 8%
I would describe my class as a “writing community”:
Agree: 92% Disagree: 7% Not Applicable: 1%
Stretch Model: Advantages
Remedial/developmental stigma reduced
Students earn college credit in both semesters
More time to identify and address individual writing strengths and weaknesses
Consistency and familiarity of a “writing community”
Stretch Model: Disadvantages
Elective (not Gen Ed credit) for ENGL 1009
Scheduling
Curriculum fatigue
“Junior High Syndrome”: too much familiarity
Accelerated Studio Model
Special sections for higher level students
(approximately 15% of Stretch students)
Students can earn Gen Ed credit for ENGL 1010 in one semester instead of two
Classroom instruction: 3 hours/week
Studio (small group) meetings: 1 hour/week
Accelerated Studio Model: Advantages
77% of Studio students earn credit for ENGL 1010 in one semester instead of two
Former students pass ENGL 1020 (next course in sequence) at high rates
Course provides needed support for highly motivated adult learners
Accelerated Studio Model: Disadvantages
Instructional challenges
Increased administrative paperwork
Cost of Studio facilitators
Scheduling of small group sessions
Possible stigma for students who do not earn Gen Ed credit
Former Developmental Math Structure
ACT Math
Course Credit Hours Contact Hours
Next Course
15-16 DSPM 0800 (Elementary
Algebra)
3
(Institutional Credit)
3 DSPM 0850
(Intermediate
Algebra) 17-18 DSPM 0850
(Intermediate Algebra)
3
(Institutional Credit)
3 MATH 1010
(Math for General Studies)
or
MATH 1710
(College Algebra)
Math Redesign Structure
ACT (Math)
Course Credit Hours
Contact Hours
Next Course
15-16 Math 1000K (Essentials of Mathematics)
3
(Elect. Credit)
5 (3 class/ 2 lab*)
MATH 1010K
(Math for Gen. Studies);MATH 1530K (Applied Statistics); or
MATH 1710K (College Algebra)
17-18 MATH 1010K
(Math for Gen. Studies);MATH 1530K (Applied Statistics); or
MATH 1710K (College Algebra)
3
(Gen. Ed.
Credit)
5 N/A
MATH 1000-K
Essentials of Mathematics
An introduction to learning mathematics
Incorporates strategies for learning mathematics, problem solving, and improving critical thinking and technology skills
Encourages independent learning
Provides a strong foundation for success in higher-level mathematics courses
3 hours of elective credit; 5 contact hours
(3 classroom/ 2 lab*)
MATH 1010-K Mathematics for General Studies
Special sections of an existing general education mathematics course
Curriculum identical to “regular” MATH 1010 with the addition of foundational materials as appropriate
3 credit hours; 5 contact hours
MATH 1710-K College Algebra
Special sections of an existing college algebra course (general education credit)
Curriculum identical to “regular” MATH 1710 with the addition of foundational materials as appropriate
3 credit hours; 5 contact hours
Research Purpose
To examine the results of the redesign initiative for two prescribed general education mathematics courses:
MATH 1010-K and MATH 1710-K
Student Success Rates
DSPM 0850 A to C D,W,I, or F
2003-2006
65.1% 34.9%
MATH 1010-K
2006-2012 65.7% 34.3%
MATH 1710-K
2006-2012 63.0% 37.0%
MATH 1010-K/1710-K
combined
63.9% 36.1%
Student Success Rates DSPM 0850 Course vs. K Sections
3-year average for DSPM 0850: 65.1%
Combined MATH 1010-K/1710-K: 63.9%
Two-proportion z-test indicates the pass rates for these two groups are not significantly different at 95% confidence level (z=1.582; p=.1141).
A-C Student Success Rates 2006-2012
A to C D,W,I, or F
MATH 1010-K 65.7% 34.3%
MATH 1010 (Non-K) 70.1% 29.9%
MATH 1710-K 63.0% 37.0%
MATH 1710 (Non-K) 70.2% 29.8%
MATH 1010-K/1710-K combined
63.9% 36.1%
MATH 1010/1710 (Non-K) combined
70.2% 29.8%
A-C Student Success Rates
K sections vs. Non-K sections Both K and non-K sections satisfy the general
education mathematics requirement
MATH 1010K: 65.7%
MATH 1010 (Non-K): 70.1%
Two-proportion z-test indicates the pass rates for these two groups are significantly different at 95% confidence level (z=-4.346; p=0).
A-C Student Success Rates
K sections vs. Non-K sections
MATH 1710K : 63.0%
MATH 1710 (non-K sections): 70.2%
Two-proportion z-test indicates the pass rates for these two groups are significantly different at 95% confidence level (z=-10.693; p=0).
Combined success rates of K and non-K sections of these two courses were investigated:
Two-proportion z-test indicates the A-C rates for these two groups are significantly different at 95% confidence level (z=-11.274; p=0)
Former DSP Students in Regular MATH 1010 and MATH 1710 prior to 2006 Compared to K Courses
A to C D,W,I, or F
MATH 1010
57% 43.0%
MATH 1710
56.6% 43.4%
A to C D,W,I, or F
MATH 1010K
06-09
65.7% 34.3%
MATH 1710K
06-09
63.0% 37.0%
MATH 1710 General Education Learning
Outcome Assessment Spring 2008 and Spring 2009
MATH 1710-K 57.7%
MATH 1710 (Non-K) 64.9%
Two-proportion z-test indicates the pass rates for these two groups have a significant difference at 95% confidence level (z=9.2).
Note: Students in MATH 1710K are allowed to withdraw only under extenuating circumstances. Results included students who may have chosen to withdraw given the option to do so. Spring 2008,
2.4% of K course students withdrew;
6.7% of Non-K students withdrew.
Advantages of Redesign
Reduces time/cost for completion
General Ed credit provided
Reduced stigma
Students complete general education mathematics requirements early thus increasing likelihood of earning bachelor’s degree (Adelman, 2006)
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Disadvantages of Redesign
Additional contact hours
Scheduling
Extra staffing
More coordination required
THANK YOU!
Questions?
Discussion?
Contact information
